[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [syndication] shared feed lists
Take comments from all interested parties and release guidelines? That's fine
idea and precisely what's being done.
Here's the spec:
For sites wanting to offer a list of RSS feeds, use of the HTML <head> section
<link> element should be considered. Examples of which can resemble:
<link rel='subscriptions' type='http://purl.org/ocs/directory/0.5/#'
href='http://example.com/list.rdf'/>
<link rel='subscriptions' type='text/opml' href='http://example.com/list.opml'/>
Applications would be expected to understand the use of the 'rel' attribute as
an indicator of the link's purpose and the 'type' attribute as the format being
used. This to facilitate decision making on the suitability of the document
before the data is downloaded. This to avoid burdening the requester with
downloading data in a format it doesn't understand. This also allows for
extensibility in formats being offered for this purpose. It's worth considering
that the number of these link elements should be kept to a low quantity. One if
possible, certainly no more than five. This also to avoid needlessly burdening
the requester with more data that is practical in currently understood
situations.
There, spec'd out.
I'm open to discussion the specific text of the 'rel' attribute and the range of
'type' formats. I'd think using a URI would be smarter in the long run. But
I'm open to using MIME types when none exists. Of course then there's also the
failure to apply for a legitimate MIME type but that's a whole other train
wreck...
-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists
> You'd lose that bet Jeff.
>
> Look, you're arguing -- and I don't want to argue with you.
>
> We have a problem that needs solving. You've made your point adequately.
>
> Now perhaps you would you like to write a spec that suits your needs, and
> maybe other people would implement it.
>
> And actually I have a lot of experience designing things that last a long
> time and work really well.
>
> Mazel tov.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Barr" <jeff@vertexdev.com>
> To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists
>
>
> > index.html is NOT part of the web's namespace. Some web servers
> > happen to return that file when they receive a "GET" at the
> > root of the server's namespace, that's all.
> >
> > Hardware, software, and data all have different lifetimes. Also,
> > those machines contained your personal files, not items built
> > for worldwide automatic processing. I'd be willing to bet
> > that you still have some of the data which was originally
> > created on those machines. If we do a good job of designing
> > the data then it will survive across changes in hardware
> > and software. That's all we are trying to do here.
> >
> > We can build things to last and they might or might not last,
> > or we can build them quick and dirty and watch as they fall
> > apart under the weight of poor decisions.
> >
> > Jeff;
> >
> > PS - Apple ][ Forever.
> >
> > > Tim Bray is certainly an eloquent person, but he has no clue if we'll be
> > > using the Web in 3000, nor will he ever find out. When I moved in March
> I
> > > threw out four dumpsters worth of history, there were a bunch of disks
> > > formatted for CP/M in the pile of stuff I threw out. People said things
> like
> > > that about CP/M too. And the Apple II. Forget it, they're trash now, no
> one
> > > cares what they called their special files and any time spent arguing
> over
> > > what they were called was time wasted. And that's something none of us
> have
> > > very much of, btw.
> > >
> > > These things look precious and we'd like to think they live forever, but
> > > they don't. We can argue about this ad infinitum, and then all we get is
> an
> > > argument and no new software. Hey if I followed your advice, how would I
> > > know where to look for the <link> element? Doesn't index.html clog up
> the
> > > namespace? Aren't you blindly looking for something wasteful? Hehe. You
> end
> > > up chasing your tail Jeff.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Barr" <jeff@vertexdev.com>
> > > To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:02 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>The efficiency is just part of the issue here. The bigger
> > >>one is the fact that picking fixed names for things clogs
> > >>up the web namespace. If web developers keep creating fixed
> > >>names for things, then this is going to evolve in to a
> > >>mess.
> > >>
> > >>The two existing fixed names (favicon.ico and robots.txt) are
> > >>seen as pollutants in an otherwise clean naming space.
> > >>
> > >>Tim Bray put this very well when he stated that we are
> > >>building a web that should still be viable in the year
> > >>3000, and that we should all make decisions with respect
> > >>to that timeframe. So imagine the effect of 1000 years
> > >>of picking fixed names. Each individual choice seems
> > >>fine, but the accumulated weight of those choices isn't
> > >>so fine.
> > >>
> > >>Jeff;
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>First let's take out the emotionally charged words, blindly, waste,
> clog
> > >
> > > up,
> > >
> > >>>etc.
> > >>>
> > >>>Do the math. I answered this question in the Q&A. I don't know how to
> > >
> > > answer
> > >
> > >>>it again without just repeating the answer.
> > >>>
> > >>>But let's try anyway. ;->
> > >>>
> > >>>Assume you look for a link to the directory file in the HTML of the
> home
> > >>>page of the site.
> > >>>
> > >>>To find the directory, you:
> > >>>
> > >>>1. Read the index file.
> > >>>
> > >>>2. Look for the link element.
> > >>>
> > >>>3. Read the directory file it points to.
> > >>>
> > >>>In the approach I'm advocating you:
> > >>>
> > >>>1. Read the directory file.
> > >>>
> > >>>Now please explain why is the first approach more efficient.
> > >>>
> > >>>Dave
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>
> > >>>To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
> > >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:42 AM
> > >>>Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Why is using a <head> section <link> tag not sufficient?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Where robots.txt works, in that it's intended as a tool that something
> > >>>>potentially causing TREMENDOUS amount of traffic can use as a guide,
> is
> > >>>
> > >>>useful
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>the same can hardly be said of an index file of this nature. The
> > >>>
> > >>>favicon.ico
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>thing is little more than just another vendor embrace and extend hack.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>What's 'better' resource-wise?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Pull the HTML page, and from within that already obtained data detect
> a
> > >>>
> > >>>link
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>tag. Pull the contents referenced by that link tag.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>or
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Blindly request a link not knowing if it exists or not, waste the
> > >>>
> > >>>bandwidth and
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>clog up server error log?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Couple the latter with the horrendously back practices of too-frequent
> > >>>>scheduling and you've got a real potential for problems.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I, and others, have long thought it's better to make informed requests
> > >>>
> > >>>instead
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>of blindly stabbing around looking for data that's not ever going to
> be
> > >>>
> > >>>present.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only question becomes agreeing on what attribute value to use for
> > >
> > > the
> > >
> > >>>link
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>tag.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>So, with as much respect as you're due, explain why the latter (blind
> > >>>>requesting) is 'better'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>-Bill Kearney
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> > >>>>To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
> > >>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:21 AM
> > >>>>Subject: Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>With all due respect, you still haven't provided either a reason not
> to
> > >>>
> > >>>do
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>it this way, or a realistic alternative.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Dave
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > >
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>